Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 18D9238000086; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TR9sE-0003nK-C9 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:56:30 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TR9sD-0003nB-HD for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:56:29 +0100 Received: from imr-da01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.143]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TR9sB-0002Ey-4c for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:56:28 +0100 Received: from mtaout-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.2]) by imr-da01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 54F3C1C0000FD for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from White (nrbg-4dbf1508.pool.mediaWays.net [77.191.21.8]) by mtaout-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id 13A96E00011B for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: From: "Markus Vester" To: References: <4084B089A7FF496CAC1CE9A2459B9C47@AGB> <7E9EB5FA653147298EEBB4676DCDD9DD@White> <3DD7F0DC19984F7CBF611D59430EEFA3@AGB> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:53:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20110426; t=1351119385; bh=E46RoSWuk3n1MHzgHFKw7Fk3v2PuBdQajZf97JNxluM=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=x4KOae3eFgEC6ddUoU/Ogs75EjOyiWORLLUI7GFw0R0wieQ4ILG0AB3ibfg9cnMNQ ACC7rfqrI8bztCrUDdECGO3quQj0XavbAEzmf7zVM5EaLYTKoOhDQ/wdlNhweb6e0e M5poufqvrSc1tEDHfI1bUiXYJHZPRbFY/01e8D10= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:469063040:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Graham, similar...? WSPR decodes reliably at -29 dB, Op-2 requires -23 dB. Both SNR figures are referenced to carrier power vs noise in 2.5 kHz. Op-8 would be equivalent in sensitivity but takes four times as long, and also conveys less data. [...] Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [205.188.105.143 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 3.2 MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT Many tags embedded within text X-Scan-Signature: 60cd3dc4440dc5d656099dfe3d5cf4d2 Subject: Re: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is based on 17 KHz :) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01CDB24B.19BBECD0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-de05.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : mx.aol.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40cd508872545339 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01CDB24B.19BBECD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Graham, similar...? WSPR decodes reliably at -29 dB, Op-2 requires -23 dB. Both = SNR figures are referenced to carrier power vs noise in 2.5 kHz. Op-8 = would be equivalent in sensitivity but takes four times as long, and = also conveys less data. In an optical subcarrier system, FSK will be no more difficult to = implement than ASK. And no average power is being saved by using 50% = duty cycle. Regarding the over the air comparison, please review the comment from = PA0A, pasted beneath. Sorry, but some statements just don't become more true by repeating them = again and again... =20 Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) From: Albert=20 Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 2:25 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: DUAL BEACON WSPR + OPERA 500Khz Graham, Regarding your dual mode 500 kHz tests yesterday. For me the absolute = winner is WSPR, when Opera stopped to decode, due to QSB, WSPR continued = with decodes at least 3 to 4 dB deeper into the noise.=20 73, Albert PA0A From: Graham=20 Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:24 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is based on 17 = KHz :) What's you measured error ? ..taking one is peak and one is = average and the beach mark is different as well, direct read-out = testing is not satisfactory. =20 Over a live radio path the statement is reasonably correct , op2 = may on the + side and op4 on the - side =20 I think the statement is technically correct, however , the = differences in the calibration and method do present a technical = quandary . Similar =3D having a resemblance in appearance, character, or = quantity, without being identical: In parallel transmission test over 25 miles on 500 k , the two = modes randomly decoded at and around the same level=20 However system implementation is the key , simplicity of use , with = minimal hardware requirements. as can be seen on the 136 band , = many stations are using the system with some very good results = , hopefully for field work with optical systems it will give a = reliable lap-top based SDR measuring system . =20 73 -G..=20 From: Markus Vester=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:48 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is based on 17 = KHz :) From: Graham=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:18 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is based on 17 KHz = :) ... > and OP2 has similar sensitivity as the wspr system.=20 ... =20 this is definitely not true. 73, Markus ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01CDB24B.19BBECD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Graham,

similar...? WSPR decodes reliably at = -29 dB,=20 Op-2 requires -23 dB. Both SNR figures are referenced=20 to carrier power vs noise in 2.5 kHz. Op-8 would be equivalent in=20 sensitivity but takes four times as long, and also conveys less=20 data.

In an optical = subcarrier=20 system, FSK will be no more difficult to implement than ASK. And no = average=20 power is being saved by using 50% duty cycle.

Regarding the over = the air=20 comparison, please review the comment from PA0A, pasted=20 beneath.

Sorry, but some=20 statements just don't become more true by repeating them again and=20 again...

Best = 73,

Markus = (DF6NM)

From: Albert

Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 2:25 PM

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Subject: Re: LF: DUAL BEACON WSPR + OPERA 500Khz

Graham,

Regarding your dual mode = 500 kHz=20 tests yesterday. For me the absolute winner is WSPR, when Opera stopped = to=20 decode, due to QSB, WSPR continued with decodes at least 3 to 4 dB = deeper into=20 the noise.

73, Albert PA0A

From: Graham

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:24 AM

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20

Subject: Re: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is = based=20 on 17 KHz :)

What's you measured error ? ..taking =20 one is peak and one is average = and =20 the beach mark is different as well, = direct =20 read-out testing is not satisfactory.

Over a live radio path the statement = is=20 reasonably correct , op2 may on the + = side =20 and op4 on the - side

I think the statement is technically correct, = however ,=20 the differences in the calibration and = method =20 do present a technical quandary .

Similar =3D having = a=20 resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being = identical:

In parallel transmission test = over =20 25 miles on 500 k , the two modes =20 randomly decoded at and around the same level=20

However system implementation is the = key =20 , simplicity of use , with minimal hardware=20 requirements. as can be seen on the 136 band ,=20 many stations are using the system = with =20 some very good results , hopefully = for =20 field work with optical systems = it =20 will give a reliable lap-top based SDR=20 measuring system .

73 -G..

From: Markus Vester

Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:48 PM

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20

Subject: Re: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is = based=20 on 17 KHz :)

From: Graham

Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:18 PM

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20

Subject: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is = based on 17=20 KHz :)

...

> and OP2 =20 has similar sensitivity as the wspr system.

...

this is definitely not = true.

73, Markus

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01CDB24B.19BBECD0--